In my research, I have noticed the indifference shown by the courts, legislatures and right wing groups that have a comment or opinion about the second amendment. James Madison was startled to hear how the bill, right to keep and bear arms was passed. This was passed the house by a voice vote without objection and hardly any debate. The reason the second amendment was added was because at the time the founding fathers realized that a society with guns may be hard to control. They also realized that at some point they may be at war with other European powers and not just Great Britain. So we were actually just as likely to go to war with France and her allies as we were to go to war with the United Kingdom and we did go to war again with the UK in 1812. If guns had been outright illegal, it may have been a lot harder to organize an effective land defense through militia. The thing is, the second amendment has nothing to with an individual rights to bear arms, only state sponsored militia and federally recognized military have the written right. The US Supreme Court, over the past two hundred and thirty years has interpreted the second amendment to include individual rights to bear arms. This is not to imply that courts have totally ignored the impact of the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. No fewer than twenty- one decisions have been made by the courts. They have recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and majority of these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations which abridged it. Again helped to an extent protect settlers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Today the second amendment, in my opinion, allows people a legal means to own fire arms without them being criminals. To outlaw guns, not only makes it harder from home owners to defend themselves, it also turns them into criminals. Many decent people of all colors and creeds own guns. Most of them use the guns on another human being. Another thing to consider is the black market. Right now, marijuana and crystal meth are the two biggest money makers for drug cartels. Money that right now; pays taxes makes jobs, and helps protect American homes. I cannot imagine a solid argument to outright or ban guns because if you look at history whether your are prohibiting alcohol, drugs or guns people find a way to get them and them always get them. Often they involve violent crime that DOES kill people. There is nothing wrong with gun control and regulations. To this day, the second amendment is still contested by groups of people who are trying to twist the constitution to read what they want it to read. We should have the right to keep and bear arms, but we also should keep in mind that responsible people do not need a tank or rocket launcher to protect themselves from the evils of the world. That is why we have a military to protect us from enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Just watched Wayne LaPierre on Meet The Press. What I saw was a six-year old, stamping his foot, yelling hysterically:"It's not my fault! Mental illness did it," or, "It's the video games' fault, not mine."

A commentator said: "Trying to solve gun violence without controlling guns is like trying to cure lung cancer without banning cigarettes."

People with a mental illness is a problem. I just saw one on Meet The Press. Somebody should lock him up before he gets a gun........... I forgot - he's head of the NRA.

You always have my support. As you know, I've had to carry one too. Actually, I rarely loaded my weapon in Afghanistan as I figured if I had to use it, I was already dead. But I wonder if these people know that the fact that Japan knew most Americans had guns kept them from invading us in WW2.

If so, why would they have attacked Pearl Harbor?

Of course its complete nonsense as the Japanese knew that they did not have the firepower to invade the US and defeat the US military before subduing the local population was an issue. The point of attacking Peral Harbor was to break the US blockade and enable the Japanese conquest of China, Korea and South West Asia. The Japanese rightly assumed that the US would not let Japan get into a position where it could invade the Americas.

It had absolutely nothing to do with home ownership of guns.

Disarming a population is much easier than the gun.nuts imagine. The US army even has a protocol for doing so which is what they were doing in Iraq. The reason it did not work there was that the insurgent groups had an entire infrastructure to re-arm them.

Just watched Wayne LaPierre on Meet The Press. What I saw was a six-year old, stamping his foot, yelling hysterically:"It's not my fault! Mental illness did it," or, "It's the video games' fault, not mine."

A commentator said: "Trying to solve gun violence without controlling guns is like trying to cure lung cancer without banning cigarettes."

People with a mental illness is a problem. I just saw one on Meet The Press. Somebody should lock him up before he gets a gun........... I forgot - he's head of the NRA.

If people who favor freedom and personal responsibility are "pro-death", then what does that make people who favor limiting those freedoms? Pro-Life?

Firearms are already one of the most "controlled" and regulated goods on the market today. Can you imagine any other product that requires permission from the government, just to purchase? What if you went to buy a new car, and the dealer said, "We'll write that all up, just as soon as we get your clean background check back..." How about if you had to submit fingerprints to buy your pool-cleaning chemicals?

What really bothers me most about all this brouhaha is simple. As much rhetoric as gets thrown about by the people that want to ban evil firearms, they still don't have any kind of idea for dealing with any of the other facets or causes of violence. They want to pretend that the guns cause people to go batshit crazy and start shooting up things. The guns are just tools. Without them, the batshit-crazy people would still find ways to do their batshit-crazy acts. Except they'd probably end up making bombs that would be far more deadly than any gun ever was.

Come up with a plan that involves MORE than just "controlling guns" and we'll talk. Until then, stay out of my closet.

If people who favor freedom and personal responsibility are "pro-death", then what does that make people who favor limiting those freedoms? Pro-Life?

I find it fascinating that those who rail about 'personal responsibility', are those least likely to take any.

Firearms are already one of the most "controlled" and regulated goods on the market today. Can you imagine any other product that requires permission from the government, just to purchase? What if you went to buy a new car, and the dealer said, "We'll write that all up, just as soon as we get your clean background check back..." How about if you had to submit fingerprints to buy your pool-cleaning chemicals?

What really bothers me most about all this brouhaha is simple. As much rhetoric as gets thrown about by the people that want to ban evil firearms, they still don't have any kind of idea for dealing with any of the other facets or causes of violence. They want to pretend that the guns cause people to go batshit crazy and start shooting up things. The guns are just tools. Without them, the batshit-crazy people would still find ways to do their batshit-crazy acts. Except they'd probably end up making bombs that would be far more deadly than any gun ever was.

Come up with a plan that involves MORE than just "controlling guns" and we'll talk. Until then, stay out of my closet.

No-one on any of these Forums has 'blamed' guns. I have never heard anybody, ever, anywhere 'blame' guns. I hear one side firing blame at anything that moves, except their own beliefs and attitudes. Blame is important to them. It makes someone else responsible.

Is mental illness a problem?Yes.Do I have the solution?No.Would better gun control, as in countries that have been referred to throughout these Forums, ease the problem?To not think so would be insane. It would be the problem.

I find it fascinating that those who rail about 'personal responsibility', are those least likely to take any.

Who would that be? I'm all about personal responsibility. That means giving people their freedoms until such time as they have proven that they're not responsible enough to handle them. "Personal responsibility" means being personally responsible for your actions, and not restricting the freedoms of others because you're not capable or mature enough to handle the freedom.

Oberon wrote:

No-one on any of these Forums has 'blamed' guns. I have never heard anybody, ever, anywhere 'blame' guns. I hear one side firing blame at anything that moves, except their own beliefs and attitudes. Blame is important to them. It makes someone else responsible.

No, it makes the guilty person responsible for his actions. Who else should be held accountable?

Oberon wrote:

Is mental illness a problem?Yes.Do I have the solution?No.Would better gun control, as in countries that have been referred to throughout these Forums, ease the problem?To not think so would be insane. It would be the problem.

And just how would it ease the problem? Give me just one example where a commodity was deemed too dangerous for the general public and made subject to prohibition, and that prohibition actually worked. History shows that prohibition doesn't work. To keep on trying it when you know it's not going to work really would be insane.

America is not Australia, Great Britain, Japan, or Canada. It goes against all logic to compare systems of government anywhere else in the world to what we have here, unless you can instantly import the entirety of their cultures, mores, and psychological belief systems as well. Nice red herring, but it's not gonna work. Compare diverse American cities that have differing levels of "gun control" laws in effect. What you'll find is what I've been saying all along. That the presence or absence of "gun control" laws has absolutely no correlation with any perceived increase or decrease in crime. In fact, I'd wager that the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade had a much greater effect on crime than the passage of any "gun control" laws ever had.

Oh, and congratulations on completely failing to answer any of the questions I've posed here. Great work!

America is not Australia, Great Britain, Japan, or Canada. It goes against all logic to compare systems of government anywhere else in the world to what we have here, unless you can instantly import the entirety of their cultures, mores, and psychological belief systems as well. Nice red herring, but it's not gonna work. Compare diverse American cities that have differing levels of "gun control" laws in effect. What you'll find is what I've been saying all along. That the presence or absence of "gun control" laws has absolutely no correlation with any perceived increase or decrease in crime. In fact, I'd wager that the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade had a much greater effect on crime than the passage of any "gun control" laws ever had.

Oh, and congratulations on completely failing to answer any of the questions I've posed here. Great work!

There are six articles on my post that refute your questions.Enumerable posts here have refuted the same points.The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, Meet The Press, etc. etc., all share the same points of view.Reality is right before your eyes. I can't force you to open them.

That you would accuse me of using 'red herrings' is a superb example of denial, the one laugh I have had in all of this, but congratulations, you have depressed me even more than the shootings have, so you win.

Here's another win for Bushmaster, Wayne LaPierre, and what you refer to as a 'psychological belief system':

The thought of even giving up something that can protect you and your family is insanity.

Assuming I subscribed to your paranoid gun-nuttery fears of government takeover (which I don't), do you really think Bubba and his 12-gauge are going to stop the federal government from doing anything it chooses to do, once it declares countless lives to be expendable for it? I know it warms the hearts to think about the US somehow having avoided a Japanese invasion because of armed citizens (which is false, but a nice pro-gun fantasy, I'm sure), but philosophically speaking, what need would the federal goverment have to perform a 'takeover'. I mean, all of us, and all of our land, are ultimately under federal domain to begin with. Does it feel good to show up at tea party rallies with a rifle anyway? Is that somehow a symbolic act of defiance that lets people pretend otherwise? And what makes you think that an army or nationwide law force would ultimately choose to turn their weapons against it's own people?

Other than to make a cheap, transparent appeal to nationalism, I don't have any idea why American citizens would care what Iran and China's opinions on our domestic issues are. Is the implication that somehow those two countries would gang up and invade the US if restrictions on gun ownership are enacted? Are we implying that China and Iran are 100 percent evil and therefore do and think nothing right whatsoever?

I've seen this brought up in several places, and am at a loss as to why it matters.

There are six articles on my post that refute your questions.Enumerable posts here have refuted the same points.The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, Meet The Press, etc. etc., all share the same points of view.Reality is right before your eyes. I can't force you to open them.

That you would accuse me of using 'red herrings' is a superb example of denial, the one laugh I have had in all of this, but congratulations, you have depressed me even more than the shootings have, so you win.

Here's another win for Bushmaster, Wayne LaPierre, and what you refer to as a 'psychological belief system':

You didn't post "articles". You posted links to opinion pieces. As opinions, they're neither more nor less valid than my own opinions. A has already been pointed out, insane people will ALWAYS have access to the means for hurting and killing others. When I read through the various ideas posited on how to make America safer, the main chord seems to be by taking firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately, all this will do is make it safer for the crazies and criminals to do harm.

Your workable plan... I'd like to see it. Any day now. I'm a patient man.

Assuming I subscribed to your paranoid gun-nuttery fears of government takeover (which I don't), do you really think Bubba and his 12-gauge are going to stop the federal government from doing anything it chooses to do, once it declares countless lives to be expendable for it? I know it warms the hearts to think about the US somehow having avoided a Japanese invasion because of armed citizens (which is false, but a nice pro-gun fantasy, I'm sure), but philosophically speaking, what need would the federal goverment have to perform a 'takeover'. I mean, all of us, and all of our land, are ultimately under federal domain to begin with. Does it feel good to show up at tea party rallies with a rifle anyway? Is that somehow a symbolic act of defiance that lets people pretend otherwise? And what makes you think that an army or nationwide law force would ultimately choose to turn their weapons against it's own people?

-This is the part-time maid and full-time laundress for LadyX

"Gun-nuttery" aside, it has happened before. Google "Battle of Athens" if you will. Or "Bonus Army". I'd post links, but I can't from this fucking droid.

...insane people will ALWAYS have access to the means for hurting and killing others. When I read through the various ideas posited on how to make America safer, the main chord seems to be by taking firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

This is your interpretation, and it is a misinterpretation. I have to think it's willful, since I've seen _many_ proposals in _many_ places that do not take all firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Some, perhaps, but not all. I understand the title of this thread is absolutist in nature, but I don't think that's the majority opinion among gun control activists, and it's not my personal opinion.

That insane people will always gain access to the means to kill people is not in dispute. I'd rather not have it be as easy for them to it with firearms as it currently is.

Quote:

Your workable plan... I'd like to see it. Any day now. I'm a patient man.

Let's start with two rules, the most basic.1) Every gun sale subject to criminal background check. No sale to anyone convicted of any violent crime, ever.2) Every gun licensed and registered, no different from cars. No license to anyone convicted of any violent crime, ever.

Joined: 10/22/2011Posts: 2,006Location: Somewhere with Sun and Sea, United States

Guns don't kill people.

But some people seem to enjoy killing people; police, firemen, teachers, wives and husbands, strangers and most sadly... even children.

So often we hear of these senseless killings.So often we hear that the culprit was "insane" or "had problems" .But owning guns is protected by the second amendment.Ammunition is not protected by any amendment...

If the government would just ban the manufacture of ammunition used in these weapons.

Let's start with two rules, the most basic.1) Every gun sale subject to criminal background check. No sale to anyone convicted of any violent crime, ever.2) Every gun licensed and registered, no different from cars. No license to anyone convicted of any violent crime, ever.

You have a problem with these?

1. It's already against the law to sell a firearm to a felon or someone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. It's also against the law for someone with a clean background to purchase a firearm on behalf of someone that's not legally allowed to own one.

2. Every firearm made in modern times is required to have a serial number. Those serial numbers are tracked from the manufacturer, through any number of distributors and dealers, all the way to the end user. This it's how the Washington D. C. "Beltway Snipers" were caught.

How will adding more laws aid in the enforcement of those laws already on the books? They won't. All they'll do is cost money, eat up legislative time empower lobbyists, and take attention away from the real causes of the problem.

Every time there's a mention of a mass shooting, or bombing or something, there's almost always mention of mental illness, but no one seems to be adressing the mental illness portion of it when it comes to preventing future incidents.

Mental healthcare is horribly managed and yet many people seem to want to funnel money into getting rid of guns rather than fix the mental healthcare situation. It's like pruning the leaves when the roots are what need to be yanked up.

1. It's already against the law to sell a firearm to a felon or someone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. It's also against the law for someone with a clean background to purchase a firearm on behalf of someone that's not legally allowed to own one.

That is a dodge. I know these things. Tell me if you are for or against background checks for all gun sales. It's not hard.

MrNudiePants wrote:

2. Every firearm made in modern times is required to have a serial number. Those serial numbers are tracked from the manufacturer, through any number of distributors and dealers, all the way to the end user. This it's how the Washington D. C. "Beltway Snipers" were caught.

Also a dodge. Licenses tie the guns direct to the owners. They are revokable. Tell me if you're for or against.

Just give me a yes or no. The rest of the "no more laws" wiingeing is just bullshit.

Actually it does. Many schizophrenic people have auditory hallucinations and report that they hear voices constantly telling them to do things, many times, those things involve hurting other people.

Some people with mental illness simply do not understand that it is wrong to harm or kill another person so they do it without a second thought and will find a weapon no matter how far they have to go to do it.

I've seen people in a mental institution harm themselves simly becaue they didn't know it would hurt, or that they didn't care (the same applied when they attacked other people).

Mental illness is one of the major factors in some killings, but people tend to brush it off as dismissable and attack the thing that "seems" easier to fix.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.